Can Joan and hubby have so much in marital assets that a huge divorce settlement fight should be a concern? She hardly has a super high-paying job, and he is just a military guy, after all.

I've known enough people getting divorces to know that the adage "When the stakes are small, tempers run hot" is often true. And often in divorce disagreements, it's less about getting stuff than inflicting damage.

I don't think I've ever heard someone be so specific when giving a location using clock terminology: "...the guy at 7:30..."

The whole "7:30" thing was odd, because if they were really using clock terminology, they'd have had to look over their left shoulders to see the guy at 7:30, but clearly he was just across the bar from them, and not behind them. So I'm not sure what "7:30" was referring to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by efilippi

Can Joan and hubby have so much in marital assets that a huge divorce settlement fight should be a concern? She hardly has a super high-paying job, and he is just a military guy, after all.

I don't think it's about assets. I think it's about the indignity of Greg being the one to request the divorce, when in fact it was Joan that kicked him out. She felt like she had the right to file against him, but didn't think he had any right to file against her.

The whole "7:30" thing was odd, because if they were really using clock terminology, they'd have had to look over their left shoulders to see the guy at 7:30, but clearly he was just across the bar from them, and not behind them. So I'm not sure what "7:30" was referring to.

Umm unless I'm remembering wrong, he was where I'd consider the 7 o'clock position from them at the bar.

Umm unless I'm remembering wrong, he was where I'd consider the 7 o'clock position from them at the bar.

I just went back and re-watched that scene, and Don and Joan are sitting at the bar, and then the bar makes a right angle and the guy is sitting a little ways down on that other side that's perpendicular to them. If they're facing forward in their chairs, that guy is at about 10 or 11 o'clock, not 7:30.

Maybe you're thinking of a different system of describing position by the numbers on a clock. The one I'm familiar with is 12 o'clock is straight in front of you, 6 o'clock is straight behind you. 9 o'clock is directly to your left, 3 o'clock is directly to your right. So 7:30 would be behind you to your left. That's not where the guy was sitting.

I just went back and re-watched that scene, and Don and Joan are sitting at the bar, and then the bar makes a right angle and the guy is sitting a little ways down on that other side that's perpendicular to them. If they're facing forward in their chairs, that guy is at about 10 or 11 o'clock, not 7:30.

Maybe you're thinking of a different system of describing position by the numbers on a clock. The one I'm familiar with is 12 o'clock is straight in front of you, 6 o'clock is straight behind you. 9 o'clock is directly to your left, 3 o'clock is directly to your right. So 7:30 would be behind you to your left. That's not where the guy was sitting.

Oh I dunno. I guess I'm picturing a clock in your vision and imagining where the guy would be by that. I have no experience with this as I never use the terms. I just say "hot guy at the bar" and if you can't figure it out, ya must not think he's that hot.

In 1966, adultery was the only ground offered by NYS. So that was the sole option available to Greg. (New York didn't have no-fault divorce until 2010) He's either guessing, assuming, willing to perjure himself or actually put the pieces of Kevin's paternity together. Probably not good for Joan.

In 1966, adultery was the only ground offered by NYS. So that was the sole option available to Greg. (New York didn't have no-fault divorce until 2010) He's either guessing, assuming, willing to perjure himself or actually put the pieces of Kevin's paternity together. Probably not good for Joan.

That's what I thought too but some research showed that NY divorce law changed significantly in 1966. Additional grounds were added:

Cruel and inhuman treatment (Domestic Relations Law §170.1)
Abandonment for a continuous period of one year or more (DRL §170.2)
Imprisonment for more than three years subsequent to the marriage (DRL §170.3)
Adultery (DRL §170.4)
Conversion of a separation judgment (DRL §170.5)
Conversion of a written and acknowledged separation agreement after living separate and apart for more than one year (DRL §170.6)

"The legislature also selected "imprisonment" as a ground but instead of referring to felony conviction, or crimes involving moral turpitude, simply referred to the length of imprisonment. In the case of the new "cruel and inhuman treatment" ground, the legislature melded two different grounds for legal separation which had existed under the old law. It used a conjunctive "or" to indicate that either "physical" or "mental cruelty" could be the basis for "cruel and inhuman treatment." It was intended that conduct of the defendant which endangered the mental well being of the plaintiff so as to make it improper to continue cohabitation, as well as conduct endangering the physical well being that made it unsafe to continue cohabitation, should be a ground for divorce. "Adultery" as a divorce ground was redefined so as to include deviate sexual intercourse."

I don't remember, did they have accurate paternity tests back then? I know it's possible that blood types will tell you, but other than that?

I don't think so. To have really accurate paternity testing you need DNA testing and that wasn't available back then.

A bit of research later...
Bloodtyping or serological testing might be able to tell you that the baby wasn't the fathers, but it'd depend on the blood type and group of the husband and of the actual father. And even that would depend somewhat on the bloodtype of the child. But those tests could only exclude 20 or 30% of the male population from possibly being the father. (So you'd need a lot of luck to prove infidelity from those tests)

It wasn't until the 1970s that you got significantly better tests (HLA Typing can exclude up to 80% of the male population)

But it was the 1980's that first brought in DNA testing (exclude 99.99+% of the male population as the possible father).

So in terms of the show, there's enough wiggle room that if the writers wanted to go down the blood testing path they could reasonably plausible have the test show Joan's husband couldn't be the father or be inconclusive. They could not however show that Roger definitively was the father.

I am amazed at the low ratings for Mad Men, one of the best time piece show I have ever seen.

Me too. This is the first season we have watched on AMC, the rest streamed on Netflix in catch up mode.
There must be some stats (maybe closely held by Netflix) of how many people are doing what we did.